Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.

Why would you say that? Because we have some wars and maybe wars to come? Because we have drama over politics and economic systems on the edge of collapse?

If you look back through history that’s just a normal day. Maybe you could look again for the things we have done.

We have the technical ability to feed the worldWe now live longer than everIn places that are not undergoing war we are safer than everWe inhabit and have been to every place on the planetWe are trying to rescue polar bearsWe have a working relationship between all of the major super powers on the planetWe are on our way to considering sending an astronaut to marsThat astronaut could just as easily be women

Not sure about you but... According to my history book we aren't doing to bad...

You want to **** and complain about our unjust wars… take a closer look… the only places that we are having major conflict with are places that don’t want to play nice with anyone and have not quite reached their own sense of accomplishments and peace. IOW… they are difficult to deal with. Yes yes yes… I get it… We have no right to tell other cultures blah blah blah… We are greedy and stealing their resources… Maybe we should just let them work out the world for themselves in their own image. They do also possess weapons and technology to travel the world and science labs and stuff. Shouldn’t be a problem for us to just ignore them entirely. I bet they would be happy that we thought they were nice.

What’s left… It’s a godless world… Well, secular is not godless. Secular is just not faith and religion based to avoid the conflicts and closed mindedness that helped people survive the past. It does not mean no God.

Anything else? Oh, times are tough. - Yep. Have to agree. Hope it gets better. Did someone promise you it would be easy?

She placed rats in a Plexiglass pen with two cages: in one was another rat, in the other was a pile of five milk chocolate chips—a favorite snack of these particular rodents. The unrestricted rats could easily have eaten the chocolate themselves before freeing their peers or been so distracted by the sweets that they would neglect their imprisoned friends. Instead, most of the rats opened both cages and shared in the chocolate chip feast.

Personally I do not adhere to the concept of selfless good deeds, anymore than selfish good deeds. The character Christ tries both in the Bible scripts and fails. That, I believe is the point of the various plays/scriptures.

I believe The Self is the Most High God...or centered and balance intelligence within Mankind(male and female). The emotional/psychological region of the mind in harmony with the logical computation meter which we have in place will help us determine what is best for our personal happiness

It is logical and intelligent to desire others to be happy and in harmony with us. When others have plenty, when they are sound of body and mind, they will be more likely to be friendly and harmonious with us. This is the true law of attraction. This is not selfless or selfish it is much more intelligent then either of these dangerous ideals. It is on par self from one self entity unto another self entity. This is morally, financially, and intellectually wise.

She placed rats in a Plexiglass pen with two cages: in one was another rat, in the other was a pile of five milk chocolate chips—a favorite snack of these particular rodents. The unrestricted rats could easily have eaten the chocolate themselves before freeing their peers or been so distracted by the sweets that they would neglect their imprisoned friends. Instead, most of the rats opened both cages and shared in the chocolate chip feast.

Not meaning to be critical, or a buzz kill, just logical: another way to describe what happened with the rats was, that they enjoyed opening cages more than eating chocolate.

There are many people in the world who are like that. They do very nice things for others, not because they've seen the big picture logic of it all, or because they feel guilty not doing it, or because of innate "goodness." They do it because they enjoy doing those things so much, they will do them for anyone and everyone.

I still think that ultimately, the whole reason to even ask if a deed is selfless or not, has to do with assigning "extra credit" to the actor committing the act or deed.

There could also be a practical reason to decide this point though, which is very important within the hunt or a good mate: if you suspect someone did you a niceness because they believe in making the world a better place, it doesn't make you feel you are special to them, no matter how much you might admire them philosophically. If you suspect they only did what they did in order to get something from you, you will actually be offended by the "good deed." If you think that they helped because they like you, and that they really don't care if you reciprocate, then that might be what most folks find ideal.

So maybe what we should talk about isn't just selflessness, but also targeted versus non-targeted acts. There might be more categories to include than just "Selfish" and "selfless."

Not meaning to be critical, or a buzz kill, just logical: another way to describe what happened with the rats was, that they enjoyed opening cages more than eating chocolate.

:) That is trying to hard to see your point of view. The article attempted to make it clear that was not the case. Of course anyone can think of 100 more scenarios to try to prove the claim but sadly none of us were there and all we have left our the doubts that the tests were conducted properly and the conclusions reached were inaccurate. Triple blind study’s throughout the world must be conducted to verify and validate... Haha.

The study wasn't at all meant to show selfish/selfless. It was empathy.http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=do-animals-feel-empathy

Do animals feel empathy? This question could draw scoffing dismissal from many scientists only a few decades ago. Now it receives marvelously productive attention in neuroscience, psychology, and the burgeoning field of neuroethology

When classifying if there are selfless deeds it does help to make things clearer by showing if they exist or not. To do that is a yes/no question. It is either, yes there are selfless deeds or no all deeds are selfish. There doesn't have to be a maybe. I happen to think that selfless deeds cannot exist. Any range of classification of a deed is a range within selfish. In the case of the rats empathy was stronger than chocolate.

Unless one of the scientists is Dr Doolittle or can read ratty minds then what it "proves" is unknown, all that can be ascertained is what the sceintists want to assume it proves which isnt really the same thing at all

Rats are a pack animal, so the most likely explaination I can think of is simply that a rat feels safer, braver and more able to procreate with other rats than by themselves

So given a choice in doing practically anything either a) on their own or b) with other rats they could simply be pre programmed to opt for the later rather than being "empathetic"

Did any of the three blind mice method scientists put any effort into not anthropomorphisisng the conclusions?

I don't get it? So these people are practicing fraud science? Based on what? That you don't agree? You don't have to accept the conclusion but to say they did it wrong is kind of .... Baseless.

I don't think the tests done to prove quantum uncertainty and state changing depending on the view of the observer answer to my satisfaction but that doesn't give me merit to say they are wrong. I just have questions and entertain a skeptical position while also trying to accept.

Believe everything skeptically works better for me. But that's just me.

I happen to think that selfless deeds cannot exist. Any range of classification of a deed is a range within selfish. In the case of the rats empathy was stronger than chocolate.

Empathy is the ability to put oneself in the position of another, to feel what another is feeling. That is a form of communication between "selves" that I'd consider an identification of one self with another. With such an identification, I would posit that to some extent at least, one self "becomes" to some extent the other such that the very definition of self changes internally to (in some measure) incorporate the "other." It's reward becomes your reward, it's hardship becomes your hardship, its pain is your pain, etc.

In essence, the existence of empathy can explain "selfless" deeds in terms of "selfish" deeds with a simple change in the definition of exactly what constitutes a "self." It is my contention that empathy expands that definition to incorporate other entities to a greater or lesser degree.

I don't think that statement is fair at all. I don't think we know at all what 'most people' think or do in most situations through most of life.

We pick and choose what we want to remember from some form of observation and apply that to 'everyone' but ourselves. So, according to your own sentence you must only do good deeds of out a sense of guilt or obligation :) Did you at some time feel what it was like to not be driven by guilt, pity, or obligation?

In essence, the existence of empathy can explain "selfless" deeds in terms of "selfish" deeds with a simple change in the definition of exactly what constitutes a "self." It is my contention that empathy expands that definition to incorporate other entities to a greater or lesser degree.

This is ultimately a philosophical question, not a scentific or evolutionary one. And in that sense, my opinion is that no - there are no truly altruistic acts, as at the very least, one is acting to satisfy their sense of morality or ethics.

Even acts that have some personal cost to us meet this definition. I let someone with mental illness continue to live with me for months until she could find somewhere to live instead of satisfying my EXTREME desire to have her out of my life as she was making me miserable. Was that an altruistic act? No. Acting in that manner satisfied a need deeper than convenience or even sanity - honoring my humanistic values. It was not a selfless act.